Monthly Archives: October 2016

So who is really right about the stop and frisk issue? Donald Trump claims that stop and frisk bought the murder rates down and that it was and is fully constitutional. Hillary Clinton claims that because the stop and frisk popularity has gone done, so has the crime rate and that stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

A Heated Topic…Monday, September 26, Donald Trump and Hillary faced off during the first presidential debate. The candidates were asked how they would help heal the racial divides in the country. During the discussion, stop and frisk was a key point that was brought up.

The argument was brought up during the first Presidential Debate after the question was asked: “The share of Americans that say race relations are bad is the highest it been in decades. Much of it amplified by shootings of African Americans by police as we’ve seen recently in Charlotte and Tulsa. Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap. So how do you heal the divide?” – Lester Holt

Trump’s response was heavily weighted with the repetition of the words “law and order”. He suggests that by actively putting stop and frisk into action, the crime rates will go down. He uses New York as an example for stop and frisk being put into action effectively.

In New York, during the time that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly were in office, the stop and frisk frequency was higher by over 600 percent. Yes, during that time there was a significant murder drop, but that change happened all around the country in cities that were not enforcing heavy stop and frisk. So the change could very well have little to nothing to do with the stop and frisk policies. An interesting fact is that according to New York Civil Liberties Union, in 2011-13 there was another major crime drop that happened at the same time that there was a major drop in the frequency of stop and frisk.

Stop and Frisk…Stop and frisk is a method that is used by policemen all around the country. However, in New York, it was extremely frequently used. The technique involves police spotting a person that appears suspicious, stopping them, interrogating them, and patting them down.

So Trump might be wrong about the effectiveness of the stop and frisk, but does that mean that Hillary was right? She was correct that the crime rate has continued to drop even though the stop and frisk has diminished. But is it unconstitutional? Stop and frisk is actually used in police departments all around the country even today. It is completely legal for a cop to stop, interrogate, and frisk someone that that believe to have either just committed a crime or is about to commit a crime. However, the use of stop and frisk that Trump refers to is where police stop any suspicious looking character. The Stop and frisk was greatly encouraged and perhaps even over used.

The main problem is that 86.1 % of the “suspicious characters” that were stopped were either African American or Hispanic even though they only made up 54% of the population. Racial profiling was so prevailing that the issue was brought to court and was found to violate the fourth amendment. However the judge was suspended so that case was never finished. So has a whole, according to the Supreme Court, stop and frisk is constitutional and totally legal.

So stop and frisk is constitutional, but it hasn’t been proven to be effective in stopping violence related crime.

At the beginning of July Boise, Idaho has received a new law. Those of the age 21 or older have a right carry a concealed fire arm without a permit inside the city limits. This law also has some restrictions as well, for instance you are not allowed to carry a concealed in any of the following: Courthouse, Juvenile detention facilities, Adult correctional facilities, Prison, Jail, Privet schools, Charter schools, and Public schools.

This gun is showing off the American red white and blue. Photo By: Huffington Post

A concealed permit allowed a person to carry a small fire arm, such as a handgun, on your person, or in close proximity to yourself, in a public space.

The new law is the result of decades of work to liberalize gun laws in Idaho. Already one of the states with some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation. The law even states that caring a concealed fire arm is even allowed in the state capital.

Despite giving his signature Governor C.L Otter expresses concern about the right to carry a concealed fire arm from those who are at a lack of education, and/or requirement to fire such a weapon. Though other states are already the law are Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia.

C.L Otter states”Such a safeguard would seem to be part of the Second Amendment’s ‘well-regulated’ standard. What’s more, the addition of a simple training requirement in this bill could have addressed the concerns of our valued law enforcement leaders and others who cherish both the shooting culture and the safety of shooters and non-shooters alike.”

It is legal for adults of age 18 to carry a firearm outside the city limits. It is still illegal for people under the age of 18 to carry any weapon, firearm or not. The ability to carry a concealed firearm permit is still in motion, and if one is received the ability lasts a total of five years. Though no test must be taken for the right to carry concealed firearms.

The concealed fire arm law is passed in Idaho. Photo By WMD.com

““Out here in the West, most people have grown up with guns – they see no issue,” said Vaughn Killeen, executive director of the Idaho Sheriffs Association and the former longtime sheriff of the state’s most populous county. This year, the Sheriffs Association, which long had concerns about permit-less concealed carry, backed the new law.” (The Spokesman.com)

“I’m pro-gun – I think you should be able to carry them,” Haug said, he also stated, “I’m concerned that we don’t have people with a good education about how to properly carry a weapon, how to protect it, when to use it and when not to use it.”

Haug noted the 2015 incident in which a two year old found his mother’s gun in her purse, while shopping at Walmart in Hayden. The young boy shot and killed his mother. The mother had a concealed gun permit.

“We’ve had a couple of incidents,” stated Haug, “we want to prevent those tragedies.”

“We’re so close to Washington and Montana, so in order for them to go either direction, they have to have a permit,” Miller said.

Have you ever made a bet? Was that bet against the market? The medium for this type of betting is known as the derivative market – and it may lead to a global financial crisis.

Derivatives…an example of gambling on the market. Photo by: The Economic Collapse.

But what exactly is the derivative market? What is a derivative? A derivative, according to Investopedia, is “a contract between two or more parties whose value is based on an agreed-upon underlying financial asset.” Basically, the value of the contract derives from the underlying asset. Common assets typically include commodities, interest rates, and bonds. You can think of it as a bet. For example, person A tells person B that the price of oil is going to rise starting at $100 per a barrel. To officially promote his claim, person A and person B sign a contract based on person A’s speculation. Now, if the price of oil rises above $100 per a barrel – say, $120 per a barrel – person A receives the difference between his speculated price and the current price (in this example, $120-$100 = $20). If he is wrong, person A loses that margin. The derivative market is simply the medium in which derivatives are traded.

A derivative can come in many forms, including futures, options, swaps, and warrants. For example, speculators may use a futures contract to make a profit on their conjecture of a commodity price increase. Farmers may also use commodity derivatives as insurance on their product. For example, a farmer may lock in an acceptable price of their produce, saying the price of their commodity is going to be lower. If the price does drop, the farmer still makes a profit on the difference between his set price and the current price.

To put derivatives in basic form, it is a bet on the market. Whether that bet is based on the price of a commodity or rising insurance rates is entirely based on the contract between the two parties.

Derivatives can be a feasible method to hedge your funds, just as in the case of the farmer. However, as with any form of gambling, there is a risk that can lead to a financial crisis.

With trillions of dollars of exposure to derivatives, several of the world’s largest banks have surpassed their amount of assets (see figure 2). The problem here is the fact that, if a bank loses out on their bet, they do not have enough assets to repay it.

The “Big Banks”… a comparison of their total assets and their exposure to derivatives. Photo by: The Economic Collapse.

A similar problem was encountered in 2008, with the crash of Lehman Brothers bank. According to Steve Denning, in an article contributed to Forbes magazine, “the root cause wasn’t just the reckless lending and the excessive risk taking. The problem at the core was a lack of transparency.” After the collapse of Lehman Brothers, no one knew the risks any particular bank took in their derivative exposures. In return, no economic activity was done between the banks. “Because all the big banks’ had been involved to an unknown degree in risky derivative trading, no one could tell whether any particular financial institution might suddenly implode,” says Denning.

However, after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, banks continued exposing themselves to derivatives – increasing the total exposure to $500 trillion globally. If the banks collapse due to derivatives, it could lead to a stagnant market.

In addition to this, a new bill (Bill 292-I22) – drafted entirely by Citigroup lobbyists – passed December of 2015. This bill repeals the Dodd-Frank Law, ensuring Congress bails out the banks – even if they lose out in the derivative market. However, with trillions of dollars in derivatives exposure, this could prove to be a difficult task.

Seattle is famous for many things, such as the 600 foot Space Needle, sea food, and of course the Sea Hawks. Seattle has a population of 652,405 people living there currently, and gets up to 19 million tourists each year. But soon Seattle could be only a memory of what it is now.

The San Andres fault creating a huge earthquake? Is San Andres the end for Seattle and California?Photo by: ILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTOPH NIEMANN; MAP BY ZIGGYMAJ / GETTY

Most Americans know one fault line by name, the San Andres Fault. San Andres runs nearly the length of California, and has been rumored to be unleashing a huge earthquake soon. The rumor is false, nothing San Andres does or will ever do. Every fault line has its limit based on the length and width of the fault line. San Andres is one of the most well-documented fault lines in the world, and only has a capacity of producing an 8.2 earthquake.

Just north of San Andres lies another fault line. This fault is called the Cascadia Subduction zone. This fault lies a runs for seven hundred miles off of the Pacific Northwest. This is the fault line that will destroy Seattle.

The different faults of the East PacificBy: via US Geological Survey

The earthquake will cause the water to surge upwards, one side going to Japan the other towards the northwest shore. When the wall of water has gone down, and the shaking has stopped, the land will be unrecognizable. “Kenneth Murphy states “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”

“Almost three hundred died in Hurricane Sandy. FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand will be injured.”- (The Really Big One)

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is taking a stand for what matters to them. Recently, the Dakota Access Pipeline has begun its construction.

Water is Life… The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is gathering under the mantra “water is life” to protest the potentially dangerous Dakota Access Pipeline. Photo By: Alex Wong/Getty Images

The purpose of the pipeline will be to carry huge amounts of crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois where it will be refined. The pipeline will be 30 inches wide and 1,172 miles long. A pipe of this size calls for a 3.7 billion dollar investment. However, for some, it is costing more than just money. The pipe will run through some of Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s sacred grounds and main water sources. If those water sources are polluted from the heavy machinery and crude oil, it will make a devastating impact on many lives in the tribe and surrounding areas.

The tribe has gathered a large crowd for protest. People from over 200 tribes have gathered together in unity to preserve their land, their total numbers being somewhere around 1,000 semi-permanent inhabitants who plan to stay at the protester camp for as long as it takes. They have tried to remain peaceful but according to Linda Black Elk, the Dakota Access company is trying to provoke them into violence.

Standing as one…Over 200 tribes from across the country are gathering together in unity.Photo By: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Facebook

The tribe filed a lawsuit trying to stop the construction in early September, the lawsuit claimed that the path of the pipeline was going to go directly through sacred burial grounds. “…Barely 24 hours after those papers were filed, Dakota Access used bulldozers to destroy those sites. It was absolute destruction. They literally bulldozed the ancestors right out of the ground, along with destroying tipi rings and cairns.” As they bulldozed the precious land, they kept the protesters away using attack dogs, tear gas, and pepper spray.

In another effort to stop the destruction, two of the protestors tied themselves to backhoes and refused to leave. One of them stayed on for two hours before the police came and arrested him along with 22 other protesters.

Recently in Alabama, a gasoline pipeline had a leak which released approximately 336,000 gallons of gasoline into the environment. If that were to happen with the future pipeline, which runs under the Missouri River and the Little Missouri River.

Tradition, heritage, and profit. These three subjects all combine in the recent events surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline – being built by Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Dallas based Energy Transfer Partners – will traverse through both North and South Dakota, Iowa, and end in Illinois. The company states the

Eminent domain…how should it be used? Photo by: the Daily Iowan.

pipeline will be capable of carrying 570,000 barrels of oil a day from North Dakota to Illinois. However, construction on the pipeline has halted due to several lawsuits that Dakota Access faces. While the most popular suit against Dakota Access involves the protection of Native American land, another issue involves the company’s use of eminent domain. In June, the Iowa Utilities Board made the decision to allow Dakota Access the right to use eminent domain in building the pipeline. Eminent domain is normally defined as “a right of a government to take private property for public use.” However, in the 2005 Kelo v. the City of New London court decision, private companies were granted the right to eminent domain in lieu of public gain. A company’s use of eminent domain, however, can only be granted willingly by the state in which the company is seeking land. Through this, Dakota Access won 99 percent of their pathway in North Dakota by voluntary easement (the landowner acceptably giving their land).

Iowa, however, had the most landowners to refuse the company’s compensation, and thus the land was forcibly taken. The Iowa landowners have made their case based on the company building the pipeline for private profit – something not permitted in the Kelo v. New London decision.

“[Dakota Access has] represented to the state that they are a public pipeline that is providing a common carriage service for the benefit of Iowans and the nation, and therefore they should be entitled to use the power of eminent domain,” Bill Hanigan, attorney for 15 Iowa farmers, states in an interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman. “And about that, we very much disagree.” Hanigan and the farmers he represents state that the argument Dakota Access has made is not valid, and therefore their use of eminent domain should not hold up in court. “The idea that a Texas company can take our land for its private purpose—you know, the argument that Dakota Access has made, that this is a somehow public purpose, is that they will take this oil off to the Gulf of Mexico through Iowa, and then they’ll produce unleaded gasoline, and somehow some of that gasoline will splash its way back to Iowa,” says Hanigan. “They can’t prove it.”

Without any proof that the money made from the pipeline will return to Iowa, Dakota Access has no verification that it will bring public good. Furthermore, with the repeal of the U.S ban on oil exports in 2015, Dakota Access can sell their oil overseas, dramatically limiting the amount of revenue invested back into the States.

In addition to protecting their land, the farmers want to bring the matter to the eyes of the Iowa Supreme Court in hope of preventing for-profit land seizure.

Another concern the farmers brought up was the effect on the land surrounding the pipeline – specifically the soil. “It took 10,000 years to get the soils where they are now,” says Keith Puntenney, an Iowa farmer involved in the lawsuit. ““It’s going to take the rest of my lifetime for it to become productive again.” With the pipeline construction disturbing the Iowa soil, the fruitfulness of that soil has been compromised. It could take years for Iowa farmers to begin cultivating again.

Environmental conservation was once again catapulted into the public spotlight this summer as the Dakota Access Pipeline entered its final stages of completion.

Back in May, the $3.8 billion pipeline began construction after being approved by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, and it expected to begin piping crude oil before the end of this year.

It’s now September, and construction has ground to a halt as numerous environmental groups, Native American tribes, and farmers protest the construction of the line and delay it in any way they can. The tribes assert that the pipeline will disturb and desecrate sacred land and burial grounds. The Sioux of Standing Rock, one of the tribes most affected by the pipeline, claims that the proposed pipeline could contaminate their water supply, as the pipeline crosses under the Missouri River in that spot. If it spilled, the crude oil could potentially leech into the river and contaminate the water supply.

Environmentalists call attention to the lack of risk analyses conducted to determine the risk of oil spilling from the pipeline and the impacts of such a spill.

Thus far, the pipeline has received permission for the project using Nationwide Permit 12. This permit is an expedited permit that can be granted to projects that could only cause minimal adverse impacts. In order to authorize the pipeline under the expedited process, the Army Corps of Engineers decided to treat the pipeline as a series of half-mile projects, with each one being separate from the others. This allowed them to approve the pipeline without the usual thorough analysis required for such a gargantuan process.

This expedited process does come with a few caveats. The expedited review glances over the pipeline, meaning areas of potentially extreme environmental impact might not have gotten the thorough analysis that they need.

This is what the protestors are hitting the Army Corps and the pipeline itself hard on. Despite this, construction continued to creep forward. Already overdue for construction, every day Sunoco Logistics and Energy Transfer Partners aren’t constructing the pipeline, that’s another day where they aren’t paying off their loans.

The 30-plus banks funding the pipeline have poured about $3.8 billion into the project, and they make that investment with the expectation of the pipeline paying them back once it’s up and running. If the pipeline’s construction is halted, it could potentially cause the banks’ investments to fall through, which could destabilize the banks. If this happens, we could be at risk for another round of corporate bailouts. And according to several prominent figures in the economic sector, those bailouts could be devastating.

“[There’s] only so much you can squeeze out of a debt cycle…we are there!”

This was the keynote line of the Delivering Alpha Conference, spoken by Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio, creator of the world’s largest hedge fund. Dalio drew reference to the 1935-1945 economic growth rates, stating that the current economic condition is analogous to that period.

Not exactly confidence inspiring.

Black Water….Protestors call attention to the potential water contamination that could result if there is a spill in the pipeline, and criticize the Army Corps for not properly reviewing the environmental impact. Photo-by:dandelionsalad.wordpress.com

Dalio warned of lower growth rates than usual, noting that, as a result of the current economic climate, it is difficult to push the prices of assets up…and easy for them to fall. This creates an environment in which the failure of the Dakota Access Pipeline could have potentially catastrophic impacts on the American Economy.

No pressure.

To complicate matters further, the Obama administration stepped in this month to halt construction on a key segment of the 1172 mile-long pipeline. The move gave a brief respite to the assembled protestors, but despite the halt, construction elsewhere continued, and in a memo released by Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer Partners CEO, pipeline construction is at 60%.

As the battle for the pipeline continues, construction inches forward. The Dakota Access Pipeline has a long way to go before being complete, and it’s unclear as to whether or not it will be completed. However, the consequences for whatever action the pipeline takes are potentially very severe, and they are ones that will take time to sort out.

Is the DAPL the future of American energy, or just a pipe dream? We’ll have to wait and see.